Picture this: you have your poems accepted by The Paris Review. Such an acceptance can mark the start of a great career, lead to a book deal or to be anthologized, or perhaps solidify a reputation in the small world this correspondent and others call Poetryland…

You have this acceptance. Months, even years pass after this acceptance. You wait for the issue with your poems to appear.

Then you get an email from Lorin Stein, the new editor of The Paris Review. With perhaps the memory that there had been an announcement, written about in New York Observer, about a change at the Poetry Editor desk.

‘Dear XXXX,

Recently I replaced Philip Gourevitch as editor of The Paris Review and appointed a new poetry editor, Robyn Creswell. Over the last month, Robyn and I have been carefully reading the backlog of poetry that we inherited from the previous editors. This amounts to a year’s worth of poems. In order to give Robyn the scope to define his own section, I regret to say, we will not be able to publish everything accepted by Philip, Meghan, and Dan. We have not found a place for your [poem/s], though we see much to admire in them and gave them the most serious consideration. I am sorry to give you this bad news, and I’m grateful for your patience during the Review’s transition.

It is fair to note, I think, that according to Stein over a year’s worth of poetry was backlogged. So these new editors wouldn’t be able to put any poetry they wanted, not even 10%, for the next four issues.

I think this is a complicated issue. On one hand, as a writer I totally sympathize with people feeling awful about this and I know that I’d probably die if I’d gotten into TPR and then gotten my piece pulled. Of course, I’m a struggling starting writer, not an established writer like I assume most of the poets being unaccepted. On the flip side, as an editor I can’t imagine getting an editing job and not being able to do my job for several issues. If I didn’t like the work, I wouldn’t want my name attached to it.

And I must say I do think it is odd that, as others noted above, non-fiction routinely gets killed and it isn’t unheard of for stories to be unaccepted. What about poetry makes it unacceptable to be pulled if it is acceptable to pull other pieces?

Also, I disagree that there are no external pressures here, as Amy suggests. Lorin Stein was hired with plenty of buzz and noise and a mission to redo the journal, to make it more relevant and exciting again. He and his staff are, I assume, under plenty of pressure to make their mark and enact their vision. You can’t really hire someone to relaunch your journal and then tell them they can’t do much for the next few issues and by the time they can, most people will have forgotten.

I DO think they could have found a solution, such as a special web section, that would have worked for everyone. But I can understand why editors would want to edit.

Over the last month, Robyn and I have been carefully reading the backlog of poetry that we inherited from the previous editors. This amounts to a year’s worth of poems. In order to give Robyn the scope to define his own section, I regret to say, we will not be able to publish everything accepted. … We have not found a place for your three poems, though we see much to admire in them and gave them the most serious consideration… It’s never fun cutting things. But an editor’s job is to put out a magazine by his or her best lights, and that means you have to have discretion over what you publish.

So to sum up: a lot of anger, a lot of frustration. I’m not going to weigh in on this just yet, because like the Tin House thing, I’m more interested in what you all have to say. Is it cool that The Paris Review did this? Did they have any other choice after inheriting an entire year’s worth of poems? Isn’t this par for the course in the publishing world? Or is the literary journal playing field smaller, and thus, deserving of more courtesy? Let me know in the comments section.

8 Comments to “The Paris Review Ignites the Greatest Controversy in the History of Literature”

I think it’s only decent that if a literary journal accepts a piece, they should publish it. Technically, writers sign publication agreements, which are essentially contracts. I’m not sure whether they’re legally binding or not, but it’s still an agreement.

The Paris Review should have considered the time gap when they hired their new poetry editor. Perhaps Robyn Creswell could have done other work while they worked through the backlog. Maybe created a smarter submissions system or published the poems on the PR’s website or as a supplemental under the previous editor’s name, at least as a tiny olive branch to the writers.

This isn’t the business or sports world, where people buy out or weasel out of contracts. The literary/publishing industry should be held to a higher standard (at least if we want to be taken seriously as artists). Otherwise, we’re just sharply-dressed salespeople moving units of paper-product to a specific hip demographic.

If a literary magazine–no matter who you are–can’t get its shit together to honor its word (as well as publish work in a timely manner), it shouldn’t be operating. Period.

Yeah, it’s curious TPR didn’t release these poems on their website, or via podcast, or in some type of double-sized special issue. I feel pretty bad for the writers. Not only did they get their work taken out from TPR, but god knows how many other journals they had to withdraw from. What are their choices now? Go back to the journals they withdrew from with their tails between their legs? It’s a tough spot for everyone involved, editors included.

i think it’s an interesting and fair comment that this happens all the time with nonfiction. as robert said, you sign a contract with a publication. in the case of nonfiction essays or articles (at least with the publications i’ve been “unaccepted” from), you essentially sign away some sort of first publication rights to the material. most of these contracts include a clause about a “kill fee” or a procedure for what happens is the publication decides it will no longer be able to publish the work.

this happened to me very recently, several times. in one instance, i was still paid for the article i no longer own that will never be published. in another, i did a WHOLE bunch of research and writing work for an article i at least own, but is now old news and will most likely never be published.

i feel like poetry should maybe not be exempt from this kind of thing. while i recognize that poetry is quite different from nonfiction writing, i also am familiar with the realities of publishing.

I don’t know. Frankly, I’m horrified that a literary magazine would accept a piece (fiction, nonfiction, or poetry) and then unaccept it. I feel like it’s the magazine’s job to know what’s timely and plan their schedules accordingly. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Basically, all writers should be exempt from this kind of bait-and-switch. Because it’s probably much harder to make a living doing poetry (and, due to the sheer volume of submissions, it’s probably harder to get published), editors especially should go out of their way not to screw poets.